route_analysis

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the generic purpose ('best route') and the underlying function, but does not describe side effects, permissions, performance implications, or what happens on failure. Essential behavioral transparency is missing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence, making it concise. However, it lacks structure—it could benefit from separate sections for purpose, prerequisites, and return values. It is not front-loaded with the most critical information (the requirement is at the end).

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex tool with 5 parameters (via nested object) and an output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain return values (despite having an output schema), data requirements, preprocessing steps, or how it fits with sibling tools. The agent would need significant additional context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all parameters (e.g., 'stops' is described as 'Ordered point FC of route stops'). The tool description adds minimal value beyond what the schema offers, merely restating the routing concept. With 0% schema description coverage context (though schema actually has descriptions), the description should compensate but does not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool finds the best route through ordered stops, names the underlying ArcGIS function (MakeRouteAnalysisLayer), and specifies a prerequisite (requires Network Analyst). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like closest_facility or od_cost_matrix.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for route optimization with ordered stops and explicitly mentions a prerequisite (Network Analyst). It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not scenarios, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use cases.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.